Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Genesis, Marriage, and Compromise

When someone sounds a warning that if something is allowed, something worse will follow, people often claim, "Ridiculous. That's the slippery slope fallacy", and dismiss the concern out of hand. However, if the concerns are presented reasonably and without hysteria, then rejecting them with the "slippery slope fallacy" label is disingenuous. To go further, working backward and seeing a progression of one thing leading to another is much more difficult to dismiss because the case is quite likely being proved.

Rebellion against the authority of Scripture can be shown to begin in Genesis and lead to the redefinition of marriage.
"The Descent of the Modernists", by E.J. Pace, 1922
A reasonable case can be made that when professing Christians reject the authority of Scripture beginning with Genesis, further compromises and rebellion ensue. Marriage is redefined, and the bad "logic" of comparing genetic differences such as skin color with volitional sexual activities. Recent history has shown this to be true, people reject their Creator and "progress" in the wrong direction. Liberal denominations reject the authority of the Bible that they claimed to believe in the past, resulting in disbelief of inerrancy, ordination of women, "Chrislam", even having to consider keeping an atheist woman as the pastor of a church, emphasizing "social justice" over the gospel, the many churches that do not teach repentance or teach from the Bible at all, and more. When it comes to homosexuality, there is compromise on the authority of Scripture as well as fallacious "social justice".
After the abolition of apartheid, under the new ‘broom’ African National Congress Government, in 2006 South Africa became one of the first countries in the world to legalize the ‘mirage’ of same sex marriage. As Creator, God has the right to, and has already defined marriage, and so any claim to a union outside of that definition is just a chimera. An argument often employed to justify homosexual marriage, was that discrimination against them parallels the discrimination against black people under the apartheid policies of previous South African governments, or the segregation policies prevalent in the U.S. until the 1960’s. South Africa’s first black President, Nelson Mandela, claimed to have turned from believing that homosexuality was wrong to supporting gay marriage based on this comparison.
You can read the rest by clicking on "One small step — Link between compromises on origins and marriage". In addition, I strongly recommend the half-hour video, "Genesis: A case study for biblical authority".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Christians Teaching Evolution to Children — YES!

Shielding children from atheistic interpretations of origins is not a good idea, because they will learn about common-ancestor evolution. It comes from all kinds of source, including entertainment, documentaries, friends — and education systems. Also, people need to know the predominant worldviews that they will encounter in life. This applies to public school, Christian school, and homeschooled students.

Your kids WILL learn about evolution. We should be the ones to teach them so we can give them the truth, and not the sanitized version they'll get in school and from the media.
Generated at AddLetters.com
If you study on it a mite, you'll see that it's best for the young 'uns to learn about evolution from knowledgeable Christians. Otherwise, they'll be given the best "evidence" without the flaws, and conjectures presented as "scientific research". Sure, everyone interprets and examines the world around them in light of their own worldviews, but evolutionists are disingenuous, and actively oppose evidence that is contrary to evolution. That's not education, old son, that's brainwashing! They're not above lying in order to get people to believe in evolution, either. The end justifies the means?

Creationists are not afraid of facts, but we don't cotton to false interpretations of observations presented as "facts". Nor are we afraid of questions — at least, we shouldn't be, what with the abundant resources available and all. By the way, when your child asks a question you don't know the answer to, don't be ashamed to admit that you don't know — and then saddle up and ride the Creation Resources Trail, you savvy?
A blog post on the BioLogos website [in December 2015] explored the question, “When should you introduce your child to evolution?” Because the author presented evolutionary ideas “as describing how God went about developing life,” his overall answer to when to teach our children these things emphasized his high regard for this dogma. He asserted, “Evolutionary theory is certainly important and foundational and as Christian parents we want to expose our children to great science from a young age.”

The blog post referenced an NPR article written on this same question, though that article was primarily an endorsement of the children’s book titled Grandmother Fish: A Child’s First Book of Evolution. In contrast to the perspective of BioLogos, which at least appeals to God, the NPR article upheld evolutionary ideas as the appropriate corrective to the unsophisticated notion that God created the Earth and its inhabitants:
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article. Just click on "When To Introduce Your Kids To Evolution". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 29, 2016

Resource — the "Debunking Evolution" Series

Debunking Evolution book and videos by Genesis ApologeticsReview by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I obtained the free PDF download of Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools, with the subtitle, "A Six-Lesson Video-based Training Program for Christian Public School Students", I didn't expect much. After all, there's a heap of books, articles, videos, and so on with similar names, and I had heard of neither Genesis Apologetics nor editor and author Dr. Daniel A. Biddle. (Which is fine, they've probably never heard of me or Piltdown Superman, either.) So, I converted the PDF to my e-book reader's format. Glad I was mighty wrong about my initial reaction!

Turns out that the PDF version of the book is not only available free on the Genesis Apologetics Website, but you can buy it in paperback as well as Epub and Kindle versions.

Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools is primarily intended for students in the public indoctrination centers. They are presented with sanitized "evidence" for evolution, including speculations, "maybe", "scientists think", "perhaps", cherry-picked data, incomplete information (contrary data are conveniently omitted), and even outright falsehoods. Creation science ministries counter these things with evidence that anti-creationists do not want you to know, and this book gives material that counters several important areas that are presented by biased secularists.

The 2016 version (that's right, they're letting us download the latest edition) is 356 pages (my PDF says 355, no big deal). It has 11 authors including Dr. Biddle, Dr. Jerry Bergman, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, and others credentialed in scientific disciplines. They cover six lessons that tie into the free short videos on the Website. There are several illustrations, many of which are in color. If anti-creationist sidewinders want to call this a pack of lies (it happens), they'll have to slap leather with not only the reasoned evidence, but also about 500 references given at the end.

The lessons are:
  1. Why is Creation-Evolution Training Important?
  2. Bible History—Real or Fiction?
  3. Human Evolution: Did Humans Evolve from Ape-like Creatures?
  4. Creation-Evolution 101: Adaptation and Natural Selection
  5. Creation-Evolution 102: Common Ancestors/Branching & Homology
  6. Creation-Evolution 201: Fossils, Whales, and Extinction
These are followed with supplemental topics and Dr. Biddle's testimony, "Coming to Belief in Genesis as History". After those, some helpful resources and a direct salvation message.

The book is supplemented with another free PDF download, a guide for students and facilitators. This has fill-in-the-blank questions, discussion questions, applications, and additional supplements.

Although targeted for Christian students in the public education indoctrination system, I strongly feel that anyone who has received a reasonable amount of science education can benefit. In addition, seems to me that homeschoolers can benefit from this. There are people who sincerely want to know why evolution is untenable and what creation science has to offer. (They may be a bit put off by the title, Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools, but as I explained above, they are not the target audience.) This book, guide, and related videos would also be very helpful for people who are creationists but want to get more into the science.

There is additional material on the Website, including a DVD on the above books and videos, a variety of textbooks are discussed, "Fast Facts", other informative videos, and free online courses for Debunking Evolution. There is also an in-depth creation worldview class that has a fee, and it appears that they have three more planned. I may even take that first available class myself!

A side note from me to creationist students in public schools: don't get uppity. Sure, you have the truth and they have stories, not evidence. But if you aren't respectful and get mouthy, you can put a burr under the teacher's saddle and regret it. You may want to follow the suggestions in "Four steps for surviving evolution classes at high school".

There is one minor grievance that I have. Genesis Apologetics uses the excellent resources from Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, I would like to see them include material from Creation Ministries International as well. That would be fitting, since Dr. Sarfati from CMI wrote one of the chapters. However, the three ministries listed just above as well as some others are included in the resources section of the book.

A caution is in order: science changes, so keep up to date. New information comes to light, theories change. I recommend searching out the three organizations listed above as well as the others in the resources list. Here's a helpful hint for using Google, and that's to search a site that may be slow or less than helpful in its internal search engine by putting in a Google search, say, "piltdown man site:icr.org". Do it the way you see it here, but leave off the quote marks unless you use them before the "site" command.

Although I have written this review several weeks before I scheduled it to publish, I delayed it so that it would be closer to "back to school" time in the United States. Unfortunately, that varies widely, with some schools commencing in early August and others waiting until after Labor Day. Parents, students, and others can decide to use the material here as preventive maintenance or to get into it when school is in session. Whatever you choose to do, I hope that you will give the material available at Genesis Apologetics some serious consideration.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Professor David A. Lee Interviewed on Real Science Radio

Bob Enyart and Fred Williams interviewed Professor David A. Lee of Patrick Henry College for Real Science Radio. Mr. Lee earned his bachelor's degree in geology at Clemson University, and his master's degree in paleontology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. At Patrick Henry College, he teaches biology, earth science, and origins.

Prof. David Lee of Patrick Henry College is interviewed on Real Science Radio. Several topics are covered, including creationist Nicholas Steno, considered the founder of geology.
Split Mountain Campground at Dinosaur National Monument
Image credit: National Park Service / Dan Johnson (image use does not imply endorsement)
The discussion covered a variety of topics, with an emphasis on the Christians and creationists who founded modern science, such as Nicholas Steno. There are notes and links on the site that supplement the interview. To read, listen, download (all free) click on "Patrick Henry College Geology Prof. David Lee on RSR". Here's where to find the audio:

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 26, 2016

Lacking Belief in Platypus Evolution

The duckbilled platypus is presented as evidence for evolution, and Darwinists actually do this with a straight face. Although they assert that evolution happened, I lack belief and need convincing. When the critter was first discovered in 'Straya and shipped to the UK, the Brit scientists thought they were being pranked because it looks like several things put together. I've long maintained that the bigger prank is from God himself, who created it just to put a burr under evolutionists' saddles.

No evidence for platypus evolution
Modified image from Openclipart
Kind of like an otter, bill like a duck (that detects electrical impulses), the male's hind legs that have a venomous spur (not lethal to healthy humans), it lays eggs but is a mammal — and it's the poster boy for evolution? The fact is, evolutionists have never been able to explain it. Sure, they have excuses, and I've had people try to slap leather with me by throwing out links to propaganda sites — and it's just propaganda, no science, no models, just conjectures, speculation, and Making Things Up™. The goat rodeo of pretend science continues, Darwinists still cannot explain the platypus.
Evolution spectacularly fails to explain one of the planet’s most intriguing animals.

No contest. It was like watching a presumed world champion forfeit at the beginning of a highly-advertised boxing match. The National Geographic banner reads, “How the Venomous, Egg-Laying Platypus Evolved.” The tension in the arena is electric as the champion steps into the ring. The announcer introduces the champion and states the rules. Finally, NG will crush the creationist opponent by answering the long-standing challenge!
To read the rest, click on "Platypus Evolution 'Remains a Mystery'". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Leviathan and Body Armor

The book of Job is considered by most scholars to be the oldest book of the Bible. (It may have been written during or shortly after the Ice Age, since there are some icy references given in this Middle Eastern book.) There are a couple of creatures that God discusses that many biblical creationists believe are dinosaurs, the behemoth and the leviathan. (No, not the "leviathan" from the "Dark Shadows" television series.) This bad boy was a really ornery cuss, and nobody in his right mind wanted to get him riled.

A fearsome creature in the Bible called "leviathan" was described with powerful body armor. Many creatures have something similar, and are being studied for human applications.
Sarcosuchus may have been the leviathan, image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
Fortunately, we haven't seen hide nor hair (hair?) of him for a mighty long time, but it's the hide that interests us today. God's sarcastic questioning of Job described the leviathan's bad temper and how it was pretty much impervious to spears and hooks. There are creatures living today (maybe some are leviathan's descendants) that have body armor that is the envy of military people, and efforts have been undertaken for biomimetics, so we can benefit from God's creation. No, there is no rational explanation that evolutionists can offer for such armoring, past or present.
From the fearful account of Leviathan described by God in Job 41, we learn that this creature’s body armour is resilient indeed. “Though the sword reaches him, it does not avail, nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin.” (v. 26; similarly vv. 7, 13, 28–29)

There are creatures familiar to us today that are also wonderfully protected by resilient (yet flexible) body armour—e.g. the scaled skin of fish and pangolins, and the osteoderms (bony plates embedded in the skin) of armadillos and crocodiles. Perhaps these creatures give us an insight into the leviathan’s body armour? The crocodile’s exterior in particular is renowned for being highly resistant to puncture, able to resist arrows and even bullets. No wonder then that scientists and engineers have been avidly studying such natural armour as a guide to designing flexible protective coatings for industrial applications, personal body armour, and flexible electronics.
Hopefully, you're flexible enough to read the rest of the article. Just click on "The secret of Leviathan’s body-armour?"


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Evolutionary Change Without Evolution

Evolutionists are invoking non-evolutionary change as support of evolution, and doing it in some jaw-droppingly bad ways.
It's downright amazing sometimes to see proselytizers of worm-to-welder evolution using things that have nothing to do with their paradigm getting all excited about their lack of evidence. It's unscientific and disingenuous when these owlhoots claim that loss of traits (whether actual or inferred), or even no change, is support for their worldview.

In the link provided below, we see that evolutionary scientists are going hog wild in Making Stuff Up™. They give credit to evolution for changes that have nothing to do with neo-Darwinism, and make evolution into an intelligent, choosing entity — which is the opposite of what evolution is all about. It's a huge amount of unnecessary work for the sake of denying the Creator credit for his work.

Elephants pass on education for the purpose of survival, is that educational selection? The brilliant colors on spiders are the work of a mysterious evolutionary force, as if the spiders were able to see and manipulate colors at will. The concept that dark-skinned people developed that trait for warmer climates, and light-skinned people developed their trait for different climates, is rejecting previous natural selection ideas, and submitting other kinds of natural selection. You can read about these, and other evolutionary "science", by clicking on "Non-Darwinian Biological Change". Watch for the extreme lack of evidence.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

New Darwin-Defying Fossils

According to common-ancestor evolutionists, their process is slow, with numerous gradual changes between forms. Papa Darwin said so, and they still believe it today. Problem is, there's no real supporting evidence in the fossil record. Sure, they'll trot out that reliable and unbiased source of scientific information called Wikipedia and say, "See? Here's a list of transitional fossils!"

Evolution should be supported by billions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there are only a few disputed specimens. New fossils add to the evolutionists' confusion by refusing to be gradual, and in the "wrong" places.

That'll be the day. Varieties and variations are not evidence of evolution, and there the few that are seriously considered to be transitional forms are disputed. There should be billions of transitional fossils, and Darwinists should be able to say, "Case closed". They can't do this, because their conjectures of evolution never happened, that's why the evidence is continually unfriendly to them. Instead, the evidence supports recent special creation.

Two recent fossil finds are difficult for evolutionists to explain. One is an odd ichthyosaur, the other involves shrimp eyes.
In Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, he claimed that “natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure though slow steps.” Mainstream evolutionary thinkers accept Darwin’s premise, but have the 150 years of fossil discoveries since publication of the 4th edition of Origin revealed gradual evolution? Two recently found fossils offer a test.

If evolution occurred, textbooks and museums should abound with examples showing fossil A in lower sedimentary layers, fossil B in upper layers (or with still-living counterparts), and many slight, successive variations of fossils between them. Fossils should clearly show evolution from A to B. Why do textbook writers overuse old and long-disproven fossil illustrations of evolution instead of regularly supplying freshly discovered A-to-B transitional fossils? Many fossils don’t fit this Darwinian prediction.
To read the rest, click on "Two Recent Fossils Confront Gradual Evolution". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 22, 2016

Turtle Shells Did Not Evolve

When the question is asked, "Why did this feature evolve?", the answer is often a simplistic, "Because the organism wanted it to", or some such. (Almost like orders were placed at an annual convention: "I'll have night vision, please".) Proponents of dust-to-Darwin evolution fail at explaining how something allegedly evolved, but adding in why is beyond answering. That is because, according to evolutionists, their process is without design, so they're contradicting themselves by implying that something evolved on purpose. Can't have it both ways, old son.

Darwinists offer unsupportable ideas for how turtle shells evolved, have an alleged transitional form — and overlook important details. Again.
Image credit: Pixabay / markovojkic
Turtle shells are for protection, sure. But a turtle is much more than a reptile with a protective outer casing has properties of architectural design. (Did you know that the Eastern box turtle has a kind of antifreeze?) Shell, skeleton, muscles, lungs — all were designed by the Creator to work together as a unit. Evolutionists found a fossil and are claiming that it's a transitional form for turtle evolution, but they are ignoring many other important facts, including the variety found in turtles. In addition, they cannot produce a plausible mechanism or evidence for evolution, as usual.
Like children assembling a jigsaw puzzle, evolutionists have long been trying to piece together the mysteries of turtle shell origins. And their various versions of “Why the turtle got its shell” sound like tales from Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories. According to Dr. Tyler Lyson, lead author of “Fossorial Origin of the Turtle Shell” published in Current Biology, “The answer seems pretty obvious”—the turtle evolved its shell “for protection.”

The “protection” answer is not so obvious, however, when we remember that turtle shells vary a lot, even among living turtles. A fully developed carapace with fused flat ribs protects a turtle. But a set of flattened unfused ribs—like the “incomplete” carapace of the fossil turtle Eunotosaurus—offers no apparent protection. In fact, it seems like those wide, unfused ribs would just get in the way, making it difficult to breathe and move. If such “incomplete” shells offer no protection and clear disadvantages, how could protection be the driving force for turtle shell evolution?

Believed to be the first reptile to transition toward turtlehood, Eunotosaurus has until now presented an evolutionary mystery: How could its broad, flat, unfused ribs offer any survival advantage? A new and fairly complete Eunotosaurus fossil has allowed turtle experts to solve this mystery. Their discovery has not completed the picture of turtle shell evolution, however, but instead revealed an extinct turtle variety that was exceptionally well designed for digging.
To read the rest, click on "Why Did Turtle Shells Evolve?


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 20, 2016

"Evolution's Achilles' Heels" — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed. This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious.

Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name, and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

For the most part, the origins controversy is science-based, and it helps if you have a science background when reading this book. I seriously doubt that many people will read it with comprehension on a Sunday afternoon, as there is quite a bit of information in this paperback's 260 pages (not including the index). 

Evolution's Achilles' Heels has eight chapters divided into subsections and has many illustrations, mostly in color. The footnotes are somewhere around 500, primarily for supporting references, plus some URLs to CMI articles for further reading. It was good to see that the publishers didn't scrimp on paper, it's good quality my fingers didn't smear the ink.

Here are the chapters, and some brief notes about the contents. Don't be getting the notion that the book's contents are superficial just because my comments are — we don't want this article to be excessively long now, do we?

1. "Natural Selection", by Dr. Donald Batten

Darwin began his hypothesis that natural selection gave rise to wholesale changes from simple to complex life forms. The problem for atoms-to-author evolutionists is that, when properly understood, natural selection only refers to minor changes that do not add genetic information; natural selection is not evolution, but rather, a conserving process.

2. "Genetics and DNA", by Dr. Robert Carter

Although evolutionists claim that DNA supports Darwinism, that's the opposite of the truth: DNA is hostile to evolution and friendly to special creation. "Junk DNA", repair mechanisms, genes and RNA, how genetics supports "out of Babel" rather than "out of Africa", and more are discussed.

3. "The Origin of Life", by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Previously, the chapters showed flaws in evolution by giving it a head start and presupposing a self-reproducing cell that has an operational genetic system. Although the typical Internet evolutionist will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, that is both ridiculous and untrue. The origin of life is a huge problem for evolutionists — which is probably why they don't want to talk about it. Dr. Sarfati continues the progression that the other authors established, showing that the amazing complexity of DNA could not form or operate in the "primordial soup". Various chemical evolution studies have been self-defeating, showing intelligence involved in the formation of life's building blocks.

4. "The Fossil Record", by Dr. Emil Silvestru

Evolution proponents like to claim that the transitional forms that were missing in Darwin's day have been found, and are abundant in the fossil record. Fact is, transitional forms were missing back then, and they are missing now. Dr. Silvestru gives us definitions, some history about taxonomy and Carl Linnaeus. Biblical creationists expect to find evidence supporting the Genesis Flood, and the fossil record fits creationary models quite well.

We are also shown several areas where fossils are "out of place" according to evolutionary thinking, and how the Cambrian explosion (the Cambrian is a very old layer that has the sudden appearance of fully-formed, complex life forms that have been preserved). From here, we move on to fossils that have "exceptional preservation", then what qualifies as a "transitional" fossil, false claims about transitions, living fossils, ape men, and more. 

5.  "The Geologic Record", by Dr. Tasman Walker

The previous chapter discussed the fossil record, this time is the geologic record, which is "the arrangement of the rocks on Earth through time" (p. 155). When using the word "record", it's a mite misleading because it gives the connotation that rocks layers can be "read" in an orderly fashion to provide a valid history. Not possible. 

Dr. Walker provides a brief history of geology and uniformitarian interpretations, but the geological evidences does not require long ages. Fossils, finely laminated sediments, diamonds, opals, other rocks and geological features are shown to be able to form in much shorter periods of time than secularists demand; slow and gradual interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. In fact, biblical Flood interpretations provide far superior interpretations of geologic evidence.

6. "Radiometric Dating", by Dr. Jim Mason

Evolution requires long ages, so when flaws in the dogma of radiometric dating are presented, village atheists and their Darwinist friends get very upset. Although there are several methods of dating the Earth, most give results that are supportive of the young Earth, so they prefer tendentious radiometric dating results. 

Dr. Mason presents the science behind radiometric dating, the accuracy of the processes, and the huge discrepancies in results. There are several major assumptions that need to be made when using radiometric dating, so scientists have proposed isochrons. Do they help? Although the isochron method is impressive mathematically and scientifically, it has serious problems as well. From rocks, the author rolls on to Carbon-14, and also radiometric dating using helium (which really puts burrs under the saddles of Darwinists). Although touted as science that is devastating to biblical creation, radiometric dating has some serious flaws and gives their views no credible support.

7: "Cosmology: Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws", by Dr. John Hartnett

When creationists write or post material refuting the Big Bang, it is not uncommon for critics to say, "What does this have to do with evolution?" (Yet, they don't make such comments when I post a picture of our Basement Cat on my Page, for instance.) This is a variation on the dishonest denial of, "The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution", since the cosmic origin of everything is directly related to evolution. Just do a search on "We are all star stuff", or, "Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you might live", and their variations. But I digress.

We have to begin with the modern history of cosmogony. It is not based on science, but is a philosophy that needs scientific support. Despite initial resistance, the Big Bang became the dominant cosmogony and cosmology. But it's loaded with difficulties, so the Big Bang has had to keep evolving (heh!) with numerous add-ons and tweaks. Dr. Hartnett discusses redshifts, Hubble's Law, the cosmological principle, and more. He points out that there are five evidences where cosmologists explain unknown factors by invoking other unknown factors. "The fatal flaw of the big bang model of cosmic evolution is that it is based on unverifiable assumptions, primarily the cosmological principle" (p.231). No, the Big Bang is not settled science, and most certainly does not support cosmic evolution.

8: "Ethics and Morality", by Drs. David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood

Here is the "why it matters" section. Atheistic materialism and evolution are inconsistent and irrational, and they do not want to know about that. Our worldviews (everyone has one) affect our daily thoughts and actions, but evolution-based morality is disastrous. 

People reject the God of the Bible, and their excuses really come down to the fact that they just don't like him. Misotheists present God as a big meanie in the Old Testament, but such thinking is based on prejudicial conjecture, ignorance of history and cultures, problems with semantics, and other difficulties that could be settled if honest people did their homework. This is not about reason, but about emotion and spiritual rebellion. (I have long maintained that if logic and reason were consistently used by unbelievers, there would be no conflict, because everyone would be a biblical creationist; it is the worldview best supported by science, logic, theology, and history.) Evolutionary worldviews lead to nihilism and despair, yet rebellious people continue to use fraud to bolster this belief system.

In recent history, the mistreatment of native Australians, the Herero genocide, eugenics, and other evils were rooted in evolution. In fact, many people know that Hitler was an evolutionist and wanting to eliminate those that he defined as unfit, but World War I also had evolution as one of its causes. Famous atheist dictators murdered millions with their unrestrained atheism and evolutionary views. No, I am not saying that Hitler was an atheist, he had a strange religion all his own, and was a strong Darwinist. Even in more modern times, murderers such as those at Columbine and in Finland were evolutionists, and that was their motivation. And why not? Such teaching only leads to despair, and the violence of atheists and evolutionists is consistent with their worldview; there is nothing there to offer restraint for their actions.

Biblical Christianity is a stark contrast to materialistic thinking. It is not just another code of ethics. There is hope and salvation in Jesus, and the scientific evidence supports not only recent special creation, but Scripture itself. No, theistic evolution and other efforts to compromise Scripture with evolutionary science philosophies will not work — they actually undermine the gospel message.


People are locked into their rebellion against the Creator, and many are unwilling to consider the truth. In my preparation for writing this review, I saw an atheopath site asking for help in debunking Evolution's Achilles' Heels. One respondent offered a link to canned responses to creationists' claims. That's intellectually dishonest, old son. You want to debunk this book? Deal with the specifics, including the hundreds of supporting references. Also, they used the term "science deniers", a favorite of misotheists that is a logical fallacy, equivocating science with evolution. Then they call us stupid.

As you probably expected, I recommend Evolution's Achilles' Heels for people who want to examine scientific evidence refuting evolution and affirming biblical creation. In fact, you would do well in purchasing both the book and the DVD (sometimes the two-pack is on sale). I'll go you one further. Both Creation Sunday and Question Evolution Day happen on February 12, 2017. My suggestion is to utilize that weekend to have your church stand up for creation and against compromise. Showing the video would be excellent, and reading the book would be a whole heap of helpful as well. You can obtain the book at CMI or search for other retailers.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels is available at various locations, and in e-book format. Although I appreciate the advantages of e-books, unless you can view images in color and full-size, I recommend the physical book. Besides, underling an e-book reader is bad for it.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 19, 2016

The Mysticism of Peer Review?

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to "Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly!

There are people who act like peer review is a guarantee of quality. Not only is secular peer review full of problems, but some are saying it should be eliminated. One scientist says it borders on mysticism.
Modified from an image at Clker clipart
Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias, and other problems. Do we trust them to be ethical and have integrity? (Well, secular scientists are making chimeras with human embryos, that should give you a clue.) One scientist is adding his voice to the others who say that peer review is no good.
A reviewer of peer review says our reverence for the practice borders on mysticism, not science.

Drummond Rennie has had a lot of experience reviewing peer review. He has seen the seedy side: fraud, plagiarism, destroyed careers. In Nature, he calls to “make peer review scientific” — a startling appeal about a practice assumed to represent a hallmark of science.
To read the rest, click on "Peer Review Is Unscientific". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Evolving the Third Way

Ever since Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, his version of evolution has undergone a series of crises. His book underwent revisions, and he admitted that his story had serious flaws (such as the fossil record). As time went on, those pesky facts of science showed that it's not valid. Traditional evolution by natural selection was abandoned.

Evolutionary concepts have had a series of crises since Darwin. His original version was modified, other ideas were proposed that also fail. Now we have another version, the "Third Way".

Not willing to admit failure in light of new scientific evidence, the view became the Synthetic Theory (neo-Darwinism), where mutations were added to natural selection. Evolutionists are not in lockstep, and controversies continued. Some admitted that there was no evidence, but hey, there's no Creator God in their worldview, so they proposed a different idea that also has no evidence: evolution happens in bursts.

The cell, genome, epigenetics, and other continuing discoveries further show that evolution is not supported by scientific evidence. They are proposing the Third Way (not to be confused with Buddhism's Middle Way). Sure, scientists have learned a great deal over the years, and have many tools at their disposal. It should be easy to make this idea take hold. Not happening, old son. To read about the latest attempt at damage control, I suggest you click on "Evolutionary Crisis and the Third Way".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

First Animal Life — Older Than Cambrian

For many years, the Cambrian layer contained the oldest animal life ("oldest" in Darwinspeak years). Other bewildering fossils had been popping up here and there, but were a curiosity. More were being found over the years. After the century got itself a notion to turn, in 2004 that is, the Ediacaran geologic system was designated and the geologic record gained a new track.

Bewildering fossils led to the establishment of the "Edicaran" geologic system for animal life that is "older" than found in the Cambrian. Creation science Genesis Flood models should shed some light on the situation.
Vinyl record generated at Says-It
The Ediacaran system has a variety of critters, but they seem to be all soft-bodied, and they didn't make much of an impression. Speculations and disagreements ensued (but they did not stop this writer from making baseless assertions mixed with "maybe" terminology to keep the evolution faith). Biblical creationists have some ideas involving the Genesis Flood model that should shed some light on the situation.
We’ve all heard about one of the great mysteries in paleontology: dinosaurs. They disappear from the fossil record without a trace. The disappearance of dinosaurs proved difficult for many scientists to explain until geological thinking became more comfortable with the idea of global catastrophes.

Dinosaurs get all the attention, but a different kind of mystery cloaks the other end of the fossil record: the Ediacaran.

For over a century, most people thought the lowest examples of animal life were in the Cambrian rocks because they contained the first life forms with “hard parts.” Think trilobites. Like most other people in his generation, Charles Darwin identified these rocks as the first examples of life in the fossil record. In the next hundred years or so, however, paleontologists found some strange fossils belonging to the lower Cambrian.
To read the rest, click on "Mystery of the First Animals". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Dark Matter of the Gaps

Remember that television series Seinfeld? Personally, I found the thing annoying, but it was a big hit in the ratings. It was about nothing, but had sub-plots and complications. Kind of like the Big Bang. Scientific evidence? Nothing. Lots of complicating factors and rescuing devices to keep the thing from jumping the corral fence, and the biggest fudge factor of all is dark matter.

Secularists are so intent on denying the Creator and keeping the Big Bang going, they invent fudge factors. The biggest is "dark matter", and they even contradict themselves on "proof" of the existence of this nonexistent stuff.
Bullet Cluster image credit:
X-ray: NASA/CXC/UCDavis/W.Dawson et al;
Optical: NASA/STScI/UCDavis/W.Dawson et al.
Since the Big Bang doesn't work, the invoke dark matter as a god of the gaps. (From that, astronomers, cosmogonists, cosmologists, theoretical astrophysicists and others have gone on to dream up dark energy, dark photons, dark...) Dark matter has never been seen, but cosmic evolutionists insist that this force awakens to comprise the overwhelming majority of the stuff of the universe. It can't be seen, but can it be proved to exist? Depends on who you ask, because these owlhoots actually contradict themselves about this nonexistent matter. That's a whole heap of work to go through for the sake of denying the truth that God created the universe just as he said. I reckon they're under pressure, though. If secular scientists said that it didn't exist, I reckon there would be protests in front of their labs with signs that say, "Dark Matter Lives!"
Over years of researching cosmology and astrophysics, I have argued that ‘dark matter’ is a sort of ‘god of the gaps’, the ‘unknown god’. It is proposed mainly to rescue the standard big bang model from problems when a mismatch is found between the theory and some observations. However, secular cosmogonists (scientists who study the beginning of the universe) usually believe the big bang worldview to be correct as well as all its associated astrophysics. So they must postulate something invisible to explain the discrepancy. This ‘something’ is ‘dark matter’, a hypothetical substance that emits no light or radiation, so cannot be seen.

Several years ago, astronomers claimed that they now had direct empirical proof of the existence of ‘dark matter’. This was dutifully repeated in the popular media. It was claimed that this demolishes the criticisms of ‘dark matter skeptics’.  
To read the rest, click on "Is ‘dark matter’ the unknown god?" Also, I recommend "Is Dark Matter Going the Way of Phlogiston?"


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 15, 2016

Evolutionists Find Early Man Troubling

Proponents of spores-to-spectroscopist evolution like to tell biblical creationists how wrong we are, and they cite "evidence" from textbooks and the popular press. Those of us who have ridden the trail for a spell have seen numerous occasions where new discoveries in human origins cause turmoil for the hands at the Darwin Ranch.

More discoveries regarding human origins are very troubling to evolutionists. In one case, they found out that they had just about everything dead wrong.
Modified from an image at Openclipart
Time and again, there are troubles in evolutionary dogma where we read, essentially, "This changes everything, and we have to rewrite the evolutionary timeline". Even so, outdated and even false material shows up in textbooks, on documentaries, and especially on Internet posts by Darwinistas. They wouldn't have this problem if they didn't cling to their rebellion against the Creator and keep concocting false origins fantasies. Some of the latest problems involve Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, and a really disturbing bit of news on Homo sapiens in Borneo, where they had just about everything dead wrong. To read about these bothersome things, click on "More Early Man Troubles (Again)".


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 13, 2016

The Mimic-Spinner and Other Imitators

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Imagine if you will a world that his hostile to human life. Everything has adapted, from the leaves of grass to insects to larger animals, for the sole purpose of destroying the human colonists The planet has double Earth's gravity, has unpredictable violent weather, earthquakes, and more. The colonists are losing the war for survival, but refuse to leave for one of the more hospitable worlds. Welcome to Pyrrus.

This scenario came from author Harry Harrison (Henry Maxwell Dempsey) in his 1960 novel Deathworld. (Somebody slipped up, and this is one of his works that became public domain in the United States.) The colonists have a multitude of weapons, including a blaster that quickly ejects from its holster and into the owner's hand:
Something whizzed in through the open window, tearing a hole in the protective screen. Kerk blasted it without changing stride, without even knowing he had done it.

The decision didn't take long. Geared to swift activity, the big Pyrran found it impossible not to decide quickly.
Good thing that wasn't available in the old West.

As with most science fiction, a substantial amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary; the evolutionary concepts do not withstand scrutiny, in addition to other elements of the book. Nevertheless, it's an interesting story.
"I'm not being insulting when I say 'confused,' Meta. With your background you couldn't be any other way. You have an insular personality. Admittedly, Pyrrus is an unusual island with a lot of high-power problems that you are an expert at solving. That doesn't make it any less of an island. When you face a cosmopolitan problem you are confused. Or even worse, when your island problems are put into a bigger context. That's like playing your own game, only having the rules change constantly as you go along."

"You're talking nonsense," she snapped at him. "Pyrrus isn't an island and battling for survival is definitely not a game."

"I'm sorry," he smiled. "I was using a figure of speech, and a badly chosen one at that. Let's put the problem on more concrete terms. Take an example. Suppose I were to tell you that over there, hanging from the doorframe, was a stingwing—"

Meta's gun was pointing at the door before he finished the last word. There was a crash as the guard's chair went over. He had jumped from a half-doze to full alertness in an instant, his gun also searching the doorframe.

"That was just an example," Jason said. "There's really nothing there." The guard's gun vanished and he scowled a look of contempt at Jason, as he righted the chair and dropped into it.

"You both have proved yourself capable of handling a Pyrran problem." Jason continued. "But what if I said that there is a thing hanging from the doorframe that looks like a stingwing, but is really a kind of large insect that spins a fine silk that can be used to weave clothes?" The guard glared from under his thick eyebrows at the empty doorframe, his gun whined part way out, then snapped back into the holster. He growled something inaudible at Jason, then stamped into the outer room, slamming the door behind him. Meta frowned in concentration and looked puzzled.

"It couldn't be anything except a stingwing," she finally said. "Nothing else could possibly look like that. And even if it didn't spin silk, it would bite if you got near, so you would have to kill it." She smiled with satisfaction at the indestructible logic of her answer.

"Wrong again," Jason said. "I just described the mimic-spinner that lives on Stover's Planet. It imitates the most violent forms of life there, does such a good job that it has no need for other defenses. It'll sit quietly on your hand and spin for you by the yard. If I dropped a shipload of them here on Pyrrus, you never could be sure when to shoot, could you?"

On my first reading about mumble mumble years ago, the word "stingwing" stayed with me, and I've used that in reference to hornets and the like, but that's not important, just fun.

This excerpt about 2/3 of the way into the book got my attention.  Although we don't have a mimic-spinner, we have a passel of evolution-defying critters right here that use mimicry. Some are predators, and some are disguised for their defense.

There are many creatures that can mimic others. Some are defensive, some predation, and some may be a little of both. These testify to the skill of the Master Designer.
Viceroy butterfly image credit: Benny Mazur (CC BY 2.0)

  • The viceroy butterfly looks a great deal like the monarch. That's a good thing, because birds don't like monarchs — they taste nasty. Other butterflies leave a bad taste in someone's mouth, and they get mimicked as well.
  • Imagine a cowboy in arid regions getting startled by the sound of a rattlesnake. Sorry, Pard, you got hoodwinked by a young burrowing owl! Speaking of owls, many people have noticed that mourning doves sound a lot like an owl, which works to their defense. So far, the only thing I can find for the white wing dove saying, "Ooh, baby, ooh" is in a Stevie Nicks song, so that doesn't help us a whole lot.
  • Then there's the orchid mantis. It's what the name implies, a mantis that looks like an orchid, and waits for lunch to arrive. This mantis gets a bonus because not only because its appearance is useful for predation, but defensive as well.
  • Way down yonder in the deep blue sea is the mimic octopus. This quick-change artist can look like a predator to its own predator — different ones at that, as the situation requires.
  • Let's go back to the rattlesnake — sorta. Seems like the rattler is a popular object of imitation, like the young 'uns of the burrowing owl showed us, and also like the gopher snake. He wants us to think he's a bad boy with his rattler markings, triangular head, coiled pose, even striking like he has a poisonous bite — and the rattle. But he doesn't have one. The sound actually comes from an organ it its mouth.

These creatures sound like something out of fantastic fiction. There are many other fascinating things among plants, insects, animals, and so on that could make this list very long indeed. Of course, secularists give praise to evolution ("Evolution did it! Blessed be!") without a plausible mechanism, and not praise to the Creator who gave his creation special abilities, including adaptation when needed. Let me know if you find a mimic-spinner, but watch out for stingwings.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 12, 2016

Anti-Creationists and Reasoning from Errors

Many questions about creation, the Genesis Flood, the Ark, and other topics are to be expected. They happened a long time ago, and the Bible doesn't give us as much detail as some of us may think we need. There are times that questions come to mind, often during a lecture or in a conversation.

It's mighty helpful to learn about logical fallacies, especially when opponents of biblical creation use them so frequently. We get a heap of them at The Question Evolution Project, and bad reasoning from the Evo Sith is common fare on many creationary sites and social media. They get really agitated when we point out the fallacies, and some get furious when they are not allowed to continue building arguments on foundations based on faulty arguments or premises. (It's possible on rare occasions to have a valid conclusion from a bad argument, but that's not a product of skillful reasoning.) Some go riding down a trail to prove something, and this is the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion, a close cousin of the red herring.

Opponents of biblical creation target Noah's Ark with uninformed conjectures, then build their faulty arguments on those. They could save themselves some trouble by doing their homework.
Image credit: Pixabay / falco
A frequent target of anti-creationists is Noah's Ark, which is probably because the truth of it devastates long-age geology, and Darwin needs huge amounts of time to work his magic. Noah's Ark is also a symbol of judgement, and a type of Christ, who affirmed creation, Noah, and the coming final Judgement.

If you study on it, it seems atheists and other anti-creationists could make more interesting complaints if they actually read the text before making uninformed objections. They could also simply do their homework and read up on subjects at biblical creationists' sites. It's interesting that some make a pretense of asking about our views on subjects, then object when we present them, and tell us we're wrong. Proverbs 18:2 NIV comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I can't figure someone having a question in a conversation and saying, "I want to ask you something, but I have to research it first". That doesn't happen, and I doubt that anyone has such high expectations of questioners. Again, this is about people building arguments on uninformed opinions, building on those with multiple fallacies, and thinking they've cornered the creationists at hand.
There are many basic misconceptions about the animals Noah took on the Ark. The ideas that there were fish on the Ark and that dinosaurs would have been too big for the Ark are two of the most persistent misconceptions. In today’s feedback Dr Jonathan Sarfati sets these and other misconceptions straight.

Don P. from the United States writes:
Nope, I'm not telling you what Don wrote or Dr. Sarfati's reply. You'll have to find out by clicking on "Noah did not take fish on the Ark!


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!